In this action, the plaintiff in her statement of claim claims against the defendant a declaration that any document signed by her purported to be a sale agreement in favour of the defendant to be void and not binding on her; rescission and return of purported sale agreement dated January 7, 1977 and other documents and the issue document of title E.M.R. 1406; damages and other incidental reliefs on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the defendant. The subject matter of the dispute is a piece of land Lot 736, measuring 5 acres 1 rood 19 poles, held under E.M.R. 1406, Mukim of Linggi, District of Port Dickson, State of Negeri Sembilan ("the land"), and registered in the name of the plaintiff as proprietor.

At the commencement of the trial, the parties had agreed in writing that there were six issues for decision as follows:

"(1) Whether the document executed by the plaintiff on January 7, 1977, purportedly a sale and purchase agreement in respect of land held under E.M.R. 1406 for Lot 736, Mukim of Linggi, Port Dickson, was executed freely and voluntarily by the plaintiff.

(2) Whether the defendant induced the plaintiff to execute the document referred to in (1) herein as a result of misrepresentation by the defendant to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim.

(3) Whether the said document should be declared null and void and consequently the alleged sale and purchase agreement should be rescinded.

(4) Whether the plaintiff gave to one Subramaniam s/o Maruthan on December 25, 1976 an option for the sale of land referred to in paragraph one (1) of the statement of claim.

(5) Whether the plaintiff received the sum of $14,100 from the defendant as referred to in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim.

(6) Whether the defendant is entitled to specific performance of the alleged sale of the land in question by the plaintiff."

The plaintiff at the trial gave evidence on her own behalf in Tamil. She said that she had known the defendant since he was 14 or 15 years old. The issue document of title to the land was in a pawnshop because its proprietor, whom she referred to as Soo Kee, lent her money. It transpired that she had charged the land to him to secure a loan of which a sum of $6,500 was still owing at the material time. She seemed to express the hope that if someone paid this sum of money, she would get the title back and sell the land. After meeting the plaintiff in her house, the defendant returned two days later with a cheque for her to pay Soo Kee to discharge the charge. She did not know how to cash the cheque. On the advice of the defendant, she later met him at the Seremban old market. She went to his office, where he told her she must sign some documents since he was paying the money to Soo Kee; otherwise the defendant could not change the title to her sole name, meaning discharge of the charge. She said she signed some documents by her thumb print, thinking that they were for the loan she took from the defendant and for discharge of the charge. She said she did not enter into an agreement on January 7, 1977 to sell the land to the defendant for $32,000. She did not have the intention to sell the land, and neither had she given the option to anyone to sell the land. She said on that day she received from the defendant $6,500, not $14,100. She paid the sum of $6,500 to Soo Kee. As proof, she produced a receipt dated January 7, 1977 for $25 (Exhibit P1) which she paid to the chargee's solicitors as legal costs for discharge of the charge. The plaintiff then gave the document of title to a person sent by the defendant, who told her the title would be returned to her as soon as the discharge had been registered. As events turned out, the plaintiff had not been given the document of title. She made a police report (Exhibit P4) at Linggi on May 3, 1978 soon after discovering that the rubber trees on the land were being felled by the defendant.

On cross-examinati